At 10:49 PM +0100 1/26/99, Thomas Roessler wrote:
Since things don't look like we are ever getting the minutes from
the IETF meeting, I'd like to give a push for some work which should
be done by this WG.
- Revise RFC 2015. I'm hearing that the agreement in Orlando was to
do some small changes. While this isn't interesting or anything,
it should be done.
Yes.
- Define a multiple signature protocol. There are essentially two
possible paths to go. On the one hand, we may define a
multipart/mixed protocol as suggested by Michael Elkins, or we may
just extend the current multipart/signed. Personally, I'm in
favor of the fist approach.
Write up the motivation for multiple signatures, and publish it to
the list. Since reconciling handling of multiple signatures is one
of the issues raised in concern with 2015, a separate protocol is a
reasonable way to attack the problem. What are other opinions on
settling this?
We will not meet in Minneapolis. I hope y'all aren't greatly
disappointed. I will stand in the email stocks so you can sling your
rocks and arrows.
I do want to meet in Oslo so we can consider 2015 revisions, and
perhaps the multiple signature protocol if we decide that is best
course. This means it would be good to have a 2015 revision and some
debate over it in time for the that meeting. More on this soon.
best,
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The man that can most truly be accounted brave is he who best
knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and what is terrible,
and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come.
-- Pericles, "Funeral Oration", 479 B.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------